On Thursday 14 May 2015 13:49:33 Tomasz Buchert wrote: Niel, jakub care to merge ? Bastien > On 18/09/14 18:00, Jakub Wilk wrote: > > Hi Stuart! > > Hi guys, > > (CCing Niels T.) > > Since I'm the original author of this tag, I took some time to fix > this bug. > > > * Stuart Prescott <stuart@debian.org>, 2014-09-18, 23:35: > > >The package-contains-timestamped-gzip tag complains about gzipped files > > >that are in the upstream tarball. While it is true that these files were > > >compressed and contain a timestamp, it is not true that this timestamp > > >will be different each time the package is built, > > > > [...] > > > > >It would be best if lintian didn't complain about compressed files that > > >are also present in the upstream package. > > > > I think the following heuristics, which doesn't require access to the > > source package, should work well: > > > > If the gzip timestamp is older than the timestamp from the changelog > > trailer, then the file wasn't generated at build time, and > > package-contains-timestamped-gzip shouldn't be emitted. > > This is what I did precisely. It required some changes to handling of > dates in Lintian (UTC stuff and second precision). I attach 2 patches > that implement this and another one that updates tests. > > As far as I can tell the UTC/mtime handling should not break anything: > 'time' was never exported or used anyway so a different format for it > should not make a difference. Switching to UTC *could* break > something, but I've run the testsuite and it looks fine. > > Cheers, > Tomasz
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.